Relationship between two surface integral equations

In summary: But the integral is the same in either case. In summary, the surface integral for ∫∫S x2z2 dS, where S is the part of the cone z2=x2+y2 between the planes z=1 and z=3, can be calculated using two different equations for the magnitude: |ru x rv| and √((dg/dx)^2+(dg/dy)^2+1). These equations are equivalent and can be used interchangeably, but the choice of which one to use depends on the parameterization of the cone and the integration limits. Both equations will yield the same final result when used correctly.
  • #1
rrroach
2
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the surface integral ∫∫S x2z2 dS, where S is the part of the cone z2=x2+y2 between the planes z=1 and z=3

Homework Equations



There are two relative equations for calculating surface integrals by transforming them into double integrals, but my question is about the two forms of the magnitude: |ru x rv| (where r is the vector equation and u, v are parameters) and √((dg/dx)2+(dg/dy)2+1) (where x,y represent cartesian coordinates and are the parameters for g(x,y), which defines the z-coordinate).

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought that the two equations were really just two different ways of expressing the same value, but due to this problem, I'm not so sure anymore.

I parameterized the equation of the cone as x=r cos θ, y=r sin θ, z=r, which I believe is the correct parameterization. In using the first form of the equation, for the part that involves the magnitude of the cross product of the partial derivatives of the vector equation (which is formed by the parameterization), I yield r√2. By using the second form of the equation, I yield only √2.

I've double-checked the cross product and the parameterization at least 10 times, but I still do not understand why the two forms of the same equation are giving me two different answers. Is my parameterization wrong or am I falsely thinking that the equations are really the same? Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi rroach

You should draw the graph of the projection of the surface S onto the xy-plane. It'll be two concentric circles, center origin with radius 1 and radius 3. Just substitute the values of z into the equation of the cone to get the equations of the points of intersection between the two z planes and the cone.
Find the surface area. Remember that you are concerned only with the section above the z axis, so z must be positive, meaning, ##z=+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}##
[tex]\iint_S\,.dS=\iint_R \sqrt{(z_x)^2+(z_y)^2+1} \,.dxdy[/tex]
Then use polar coordinates and parametrize accordingly.
[tex]\sqrt 2\int^{2\pi}_0 \int^3_1 r^2\cos^2 \theta(r^2)\,.rdrd\theta[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #3
rrroach said:

Homework Statement



Calculate the surface integral ∫∫S x2z2 dS, where S is the part of the cone z2=x2+y2 between the planes z=1 and z=3

Homework Equations



There are two relative equations for calculating surface integrals by transforming them into double integrals, but my question is about the two forms of the magnitude: |ru x rv| (where r is the vector equation and u, v are parameters) and √((dg/dx)2+(dg/dy)2+1) (where x,y represent cartesian coordinates and are the parameters for g(x,y), which defines the z-coordinate).
If z= g(x,y) then [itex]\vec{r}(x,y)= x\vec{i}+ y\vec{j}+ g(x,y)\vec{k}[/itex]
So [itex]\vec{r}_x= \vec{i}+ g_x\vec{k}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{r}_y= \vec{j}+ g_y\vec{k}[/itex]. There cross product is [itex]\vec{r}_y\times \vec{r}_x= g_x\vec{i}+ g_y\vec{j}- \vec{k}[/itex] and the norm of that is, in fact, [itex]\sqrt{\vec{r}_x^2+ \vec{r}_y^2+ 1}[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought that the two equations were really just two different ways of expressing the same value, but due to this problem, I'm not so sure anymore.

I parameterized the equation of the cone as x=r cos θ, y=r sin θ, z=r, which I believe is the correct parameterization. In using the first form of the equation, for the part that involves the magnitude of the cross product of the partial derivatives of the vector equation (which is formed by the parameterization), I yield r√2. By using the second form of the equation, I yield only √2.
Okay, with that parameterization, [itex]\vec{r}(\theta, r)= rcos(\theta)\vec{i}+ r sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ r\vec{k}[/itex] so that [itex]\vec{v}_\theta= -r sin(\theta)\vec{i}+ r cos(\theta)\vec{j}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{v}_r= cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ \vec{k}[/itex]. Their cross product is [itex]rcos(\theta)\vec{i}+ rsin(\theta)\vec{j}- r\vec{k}[/itex] and the norm of that is [itex]\sqrt{r^2cos^2(\theta)+ r^2sin^2(\theta)+ r^2}= r\sqrt{2}[/itex] as you say. The area integral would be
[tex]\int_{r= 1}^3\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi} r\sqrt{2} d\theta dr[/tex]

Using [itex]z^2= x^2+ y^2[/itex], we have [itex]2z z_x= 2x[/itex] so that [itex]z_x= x/z[/itex] and [itex]2z z_y= 2y[/itex] so that [itex]z_y= y/z[/itex].

[itex]\sqrt{z_x^2+ z_y^2+ 1}= \sqrt{x^2/z^2+ y^2/z^2+ 1}= \sqrt{\frac{x^2+ y^2+ z^2}{z^2}}= \frac{R}{z}[/itex] where R is now the straight line distance from the origin to (x, y, z). Since the cone makes a 45 degree angle, [itex]R= \sqrt{2}r[/itex] with r measured in the xy-plane. And, of course, [itex]z= \sqrt{x^2+ y^2}= r[/itex] so that is, in fact, [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] alone.

However, you are not taking into account the "differential of area" in the xy-plane. In polar coordinates, that is [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] so that the area is given by
[tex]\int_{r= 1}^3\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi} \sqrt{2}(r d\theta dr)[/tex]
exactly as before.

I've double-checked the cross product and the parameterization at least 10 times, but I still do not understand why the two forms of the same equation are giving me two different answers. Is my parameterization wrong or am I falsely thinking that the equations are really the same? Any help is appreciated!
You were checking the wrong integral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
HallsofIvy said:
so that the area is given by
[tex]\int_{r= 1}^3\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi} \sqrt{2}(r d\theta dr)[/tex]

But isn't this integrand missing the parametrization of ##x^2z^2## from the original integral?
 
  • #5
The formula dS = |r_u X r_v|dudv is the master formula that implies all other formulas. Your second formula is just what happens when the rectangular coordinates x,y are used as the parameters.

The difference between your two calculations is just the difference between polar coordinates and rectangular coordinates. rdrdtheta = dxdy remember?

Either calculation is correct as long as you have the appropriate limits of integration for the coordinates that you chose. Polar coordinates are the better choice for simplicity though.
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy said:
If z= g(x,y) then [itex]\vec{r}(x,y)= x\vec{i}+ y\vec{j}+ g(x,y)\vec{k}[/itex]
So [itex]\vec{r}_x= \vec{i}+ g_x\vec{k}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{r}_y= \vec{j}+ g_y\vec{k}[/itex]. There cross product is [itex]\vec{r}_y\times \vec{r}_x= g_x\vec{i}+ g_y\vec{j}- \vec{k}[/itex] and the norm of that is, in fact, [itex]\sqrt{\vec{r}_x^2+ \vec{r}_y^2+ 1}[/itex]. Okay, with that parameterization, [itex]\vec{r}(\theta, r)= rcos(\theta)\vec{i}+ r sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ r\vec{k}[/itex] so that [itex]\vec{v}_\theta= -r sin(\theta)\vec{i}+ r cos(\theta)\vec{j}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{v}_r= cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ \vec{k}[/itex]. Their cross product is [itex]rcos(\theta)\vec{i}+ rsin(\theta)\vec{j}- r\vec{k}[/itex] and the norm of that is [itex]\sqrt{r^2cos^2(\theta)+ r^2sin^2(\theta)+ r^2}= r\sqrt{2}[/itex] as you say. The area integral would be
[tex]\int_{r= 1}^3\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi} r\sqrt{2} d\theta dr[/tex]

Using [itex]z^2= x^2+ y^2[/itex], we have [itex]2z z_x= 2x[/itex] so that [itex]z_x= x/z[/itex] and [itex]2z z_y= 2y[/itex] so that [itex]z_y= y/z[/itex].

[itex]\sqrt{z_x^2+ z_y^2+ 1}= \sqrt{x^2/z^2+ y^2/z^2+ 1}= \sqrt{\frac{x^2+ y^2+ z^2}{z^2}}= \frac{R}{z}[/itex] where R is now the straight line distance from the origin to (x, y, z). Since the cone makes a 45 degree angle, [itex]R= \sqrt{2}r[/itex] with r measured in the xy-plane. And, of course, [itex]z= \sqrt{x^2+ y^2}= r[/itex] so that is, in fact, [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] alone.

However, you are not taking into account the "differential of area" in the xy-plane. In polar coordinates, that is [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] so that the area is given by
[tex]\int_{r= 1}^3\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi} \sqrt{2}(r d\theta dr)[/tex]
exactly as before. You were checking the wrong integral.

Thank you so much! I see now that by using the cross product version of the magnitude, the extra r would translate to the r in r*drdθ were I to use the cartesian root version of the magnitude. Adding in an additional r in r dr d for the cross product version is unnecessary, and so, we are ultimately left with 2^.5 r dr dθ for either version of the magnitude once we add them into the entire surface integral.

sharks said:
But isn't this integrand missing the parametrization of ##x^2z^2## from the original integral?

Correct. However, the part of the problem I was having problems with was the magnitude part of the integral. Substituting and integrating the surface integral is the easy part; setting it up is the hard part.
 

1. What is the significance of the relationship between two surface integral equations?

The relationship between two surface integral equations is significant because it allows us to analyze and solve a variety of physical problems involving surfaces. This includes problems related to electric fields, fluid flow, heat transfer, and more. By understanding the relationship between these equations, we can gain a deeper understanding of these phenomena and make accurate predictions.

2. How do we determine if two surface integral equations are equivalent?

To determine if two surface integral equations are equivalent, we must check if they have the same domain, the same boundary conditions, and the same solution. If all three criteria are met, then the equations are considered equivalent. Additionally, we can use mathematical techniques such as substitution and manipulation to show the equivalence between two equations.

3. Can two different types of surface integral equations be related?

Yes, it is possible for two different types of surface integral equations to be related. For example, the Laplace equation and the Poisson equation are related through the use of the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. By understanding the relationship between different types of equations, we can apply this knowledge to solve a wider range of problems.

4. What are some practical applications of the relationship between two surface integral equations?

The relationship between two surface integral equations has a wide range of practical applications in various fields such as engineering, physics, and mathematics. Some common applications include determining the electric potential of a conductive surface, calculating the heat transfer between two surfaces, and predicting the flow of fluids over a surface. It is also used in the study of fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, and heat transfer.

5. How does the relationship between two surface integral equations contribute to our understanding of physical phenomena?

The relationship between two surface integral equations allows us to express physical phenomena in a mathematical form, making it easier to analyze and understand. By studying this relationship, we can gain insights into the behavior of various physical systems and make predictions about their behavior. This contributes to our overall understanding of how the world works and helps us to solve complex problems in science and engineering.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
543
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
598
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
975
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
965
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
938
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
972
Back
Top